GARVI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case only reflects that the administration does not take any decision on its responsibility. In the present case, in the matter relating to Garvi Devi, the direction for reinstatement was accepted. Not-only this, the respondents reinstated the petitioner. The order directing reinstatement was not challenged. Not only this, the respondents finding that it is writ large on the record that she was prevented from joining her duties recorded in the administrative files that there would be no breakage of service, that the continuity of service would be maintained and her seniority as she was entitled to will be given. Clearly, nothing was left in this case to create issues when none existed. In short, with reinstatement full back wages should have been followed as the respondents themselves accepted that she was entitled to continuity of service without any break and placement of her seniority.

(2.) The petitioner appellant filed the present Letters Patent Appeal apprehending that the state of record is such that she is unlikely to receive the benefits despite reinstatement having been ordered. She seeks certiorari and clarity on the order in the writ petition. At one stage it was contended before the Court that the petitioner appellant Garvi Devi was not even employed during certain periods. On this, this Court issued notice under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the cause shown, it is accepted that the petitioner appellant should not see a break in service and that she has been given continuity of service and reinstatement. This should have ended the matter.

(3.) The explanation being given in the affidavit showing cause against the notice under Section 340 of the Code is, to the effect, that her arrears or back wages were not given because the High Court made no direction for it. This aspect is mentioned in paragraph 6 that